The Ohio Supreme Court is standing by its ruling upholding use of traffic cameras.

The justices on Wednesday rejected a driver’s motion to reconsider their 4-3 ruling in December. The court ruled in favor of Ohio cities’ authority to use cameras to catch speeders and red light-runners and to handle drivers’ appeals with administrative procedures.

The attorney for the motorist who challenged a camera-generated speeding ticket in Toledo had asked the state’s highest court to take the rare step of reconsidering a ruling. He argued in his motion that the divided court went beyond the state constitution and court precedent.

Toledo’s law director and its camera vendor responded that there was no legitimate reason to reconsider.

Camera use is expected to fall in Ohio anyway because of recently passed restrictions.

A fiercely divided Ohio Supreme Court has upheld the power of state-level oil and gas drilling regulations to supersede local zoning laws, dealing a major blow to local communities with bans on "fracking" and other drilling activity.

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that cities can’t enforce local laws banning fracking if the state has issued a permit to a driller.

The case was argued last February, with the city of Munroe Falls saying it had the authority to pass local zoning ordinances and other laws affecting oil and gas drillers, including Beck Energy, which had permission from the owner of some residential property and a permit from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

Thomas Houlihan represented told the justices, including Terrence O’Donnell, that the constitution gives communities power that state law might not.

“If a driller wants to drill in a particular location, they have two things to do. Number one, they have to go to the ODNR and get approval from the ODNR for that site location, and it must be done in compliance with local zoning.”

O’Donnell: “And that’s by a state statute that says that has to be done that way?”

Houlihan: “No. The state statute doesn’t say anything about local zoning. The home rule amendment gives cities the power to regulate local zoning.”

“We think that local zoning ordinances trying to restrict oil and gas drilling to particular zones would conflict with the state law.,” Glenn-Applegate said.

Pfeifer: “So the position of the state of Ohio through the attorney general is local zoning has no place in the regulation of oil and gas well drilling in this state?”

Glenn-Applegate: “Yes, your honor.”

Glenn-Applegate went on to say that state law set up ODNR as the sole and exclusive authority on location of oil and gas wells, and that communities and opponents could go to court to force a denial of the permit issued by ODNR or to impose additional conditions on it.

A sharply divided court sided with the state and the driller, saying Munroe Falls couldn’t block Beck Energy from drilling on that residential property. Four justices ruled that because state law didn’t specifically allow for zoning or other ordinances on fracking, it effectively bans local communities from passing ordinances specifically aimed at obstructing drilling activities.

And the justices said home rule doesn’t cover local ordinances in conflict with state law.

In the majority opinion, Justice Judi French wrote: “We have consistently held that a municipal-licensing ordinance conflicts with a state-licensing scheme if the ‘local ordinance restricts an activity which a state license permits.’”

Before the arguments last February, Beck Energy vice president David Beck said drilling for natural resources is a complicated system that can’t always abide by local ordinances, so the state must enforce a uniform standard.

“If we take a step back. If we go back to where every little community can decide this, we’re not going to have wells drilled,” Beck said.

And Beck added that drillers don’t intend to ask ODNR to go into densely populated areas or into neighborhoods to put up wells. But Munroe Falls mayor Frank Larson said last year he was worried about what will happen in communities around the state if his lost in court.

“If the city does not prevail in this case then every city—every municipality in Ohio—should be fearful that when the state decides that when they have something that they consider a statewide issue the municipalities home rule is going to be trompled.”

Justices Pfeifer, Judith Lanzinger and William O’Neill disagreed. In his dissent, O’Neill blasted the state law and state lawmakers, saying – quote – “What the drilling industry has bought and paid for in campaign contributions they shall receive.”

The Ohio Supreme Court has again upheld use of traffic camera enforcement by the state’s municipalities.

A lower court agreed with a ticketed motorist’s contention that Toledo overstepped its authority with a camera system, but the Supreme Court justices split 4-3 to reverse the lower court ruling. The driver’s attorneys had argued that the system improperly bypassed the courts and violated his rights to due process.

The high court stood by its 2008 ruling in a challenge to Akron cameras that cities have “home-rule authority” to use the cameras.

Camera advocates say they free up police for other crime-fighting and make communities safer. Foes contend they are aimed primarily at raising revenues.

The justices focused on legal issues, not the debate over safety and revenue.

An anti-gambling group tells the Ohio Supreme Court parents of public school students should be given legal standing to sue Gov. John Kasich over his decision to legalize slots-like video lottery terminals and use some proceeds for non-educational purposes.

An anti-gambling group tells the Ohio Supreme Court parents of public school students should be given legal standing to sue Gov. John Kasich over his decision to legalize slots-like video lottery terminals and use some proceeds for non-educational purposes.

The Ohio Roundtable made its argument in a brief filed Friday.

This case alleges Kasich’s decision to allow VLTs at the state’s seven horse tracks and to share proceeds with facility operators violated the Ohio Constitution because slots aren’t a legal form of gambling and lottery proceeds must go to education.

Justices agreed last year to decide the standing issue. Proceedings were postponed as a similar standing issue was decided involving Kasich’s privatized job-creation office, JobsOhio. The administration has since won that case.

A state Supreme Court justice says language on gay marriage, pro or con, doesn’t belong in the Ohio Constitution.

Justice Paul Pfeifer suggests Ohioans should repeal the state’s 2004 constitutional ban on gay marriage and leave the issue to state lawmakers to decide.

Pfeifer, a moderate Republican, made his comments Thursday before a panel studying constitutional updates.

In a separate interview with The Columbus Dispatch, Pfeifer disclosed that he has a daughter who’s lesbian and that she and her partner have two children.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld gay-marriage bans in Ohio and three other states last week, with appeals court judge Jeffrey Sutton arguing the matter is for the legislature, not the courts.

Pfeifer says he agrees with Sutton.

Pfeifer said other issues, such as language on livestock-care standards and the location of casinos, also do not belong in the Constitution.

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that defendants in drunken driving cases can challenge the accuracy of specific breath-alcohol results.

The court also says that defendants can question whether specific machines operated properly at the time of the test.

The court’s unanimous decision Wednesday came in the case of man arrested in Cincinnati in 2011 and accused of having a blood-alcohol content of 0.143, well above the legal limit of 0.08.

The court says that while Ohio law prohibits challenges of the general reliability of state-approved testing machines, it does not prevent someone from challenging the reliability of a specific machine.

The decision said nothing prevents the Cincinnati defendant from trying to show that the Intoxilyzer 8000 provided an inaccurate result.